RE: private include files
OtterDad wrote:
>
>
> posted by: OtterDad <otter at full-moon.com>
>
> <Soapbox begins>
> I, for one, applaud Rob's, Derek's and all other coders who insist on
> backwards-compatible code changes. I write commercial applications for
> a very large company. Some code that I wrote years ago is still in use
> today. It gets very frustrating to go back into older code and make a
> minor change only to find out that an update to library xyz now makes
> me debug what was perfectly good code yesterday. I got so frustrated
> that whenever I deploy a program I also catalog every single included
> file along with the program source. This turns a 4k program file into
> a 2 Meg archive. At least this way I know I have the exact copy of all
> code needed to make it work in the future.
> <Soapbox ends>
>
> Yours, OtterDad
>
> Don't sweat it -- it's not real life. It's only ones and zeroes. Gene
> Spafford
Even if the language is backwards compatible, the libraries you use are
not always, you still have the same problem.
The fact that compatability should be broken is not something that
should be considered lightly, I agree. But if the benefit of the changes
made will outwiegh the detriment of breaking code, then it should be
done.
When there are serious flaws in your plan, you will correct them, won't
you? Or you just keep pushing on like a good little steam engine, and
hope that things don't fall apart before you finish?
Chris Bensler
Code is Alchemy
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
